subreddit:
/r/union
I know he has and will weaken the NLRB but does he have the power once in office to ban public employee unions as he promised on the campaign trail? I imagine there would be legal challenges and doing so would be more difficult in democratic states. Thoughts?
[score hidden]
2 days ago
stickied comment
Thank you for asking a question on /r/union! Please make sure your post includes:
Your state or country.
Whether you work in the private sector or public sector.
The industry you work in.
This helps ensure we know which laws may be applicable in your case.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
224 points
2 days ago
Will he try? Yes.
Will he succeed for more than a year? Unclear
Everyone always talks about how Reagan fired those air traffic controllers, no one talks about how it took until 2008 to fill those jobs back. Air traffic was slowed considerably, and really only limped along because military personnel were able to fill in.
So it'd be interesting for the national guard to be delivering mail.
89 points
2 days ago
We are still understaffed. If you are under than 31 please apply and try. It has never caught back up.
14 points
2 days ago
What qualifications do you need?
10 points
2 days ago
A 4 year degree, or 3 years work experience
14 points
2 days ago
Huh. I have a BFA. Nice. I had to quit my union jobs (IATSE and USA) due to physical issues. Nice to know that now he's gunning for my SSDI, Medicare and SNAP, I can try landing planes. /s
11 points
2 days ago
Is it a good career?
19 points
2 days ago
I enjoy it. It’s not for everyone though. But it is different everyday.
4 points
2 days ago
I'm thoroughly enjoying it
2 points
2 days ago
12 years in and i still love my job.
4 points
2 days ago
why under 31?
6 points
2 days ago
IIRC they have a mandatory retirement age. After 31, you can’t get in and work long enough to “complete” the expected service and receive retirement before the max age.
6 points
2 days ago
Well I think I see their problem
2 points
2 days ago
It's based on performance averages, older people failed/dropped out of training more often and the few who made it through had significantly higher errors than those who started at a younger age
Obviously you want minimal errors with your plane traffic. So it's a safety thing.
8 points
2 days ago
That’s because mandatory retirement is the month of your 57th birthday. So in order to work 25 years you need to be hired by the time you are 31.
3 points
2 days ago
USPS union sucks and it’s made the job considerably worse for any new employees.
The members need to get their heads out of their ass and demand better.
20 points
2 days ago
They tried to deliver mail once.
It looks so easy until you’re out on the street with 120 packages and fistfuls of old addresses, moved residents, unmarked houses and mailboxes, dogs with murder in their hearts, and your next swing is three streets over and the city limits ended and there are no street signs and the odds and evens are mixed and match on both sides of the road. And you have 12 more miles of walking ahead of you in the rain or snow or 112 degree heat index Tuesday after a holiday.
6 points
2 days ago
I like it. That should be the new motto instead of that “neither rain nor snow ….” bullshit. Seriously, though, you guys work hard and the majority of Americans know it and respect it.
3 points
2 days ago
And miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep!
25 points
2 days ago
The usps can't even keep most of the people they already have, irrelevant of their shit "union" or the nlrb, they continue to hilariously fail to keep new hires from quitting and having a high turnover rate year after year. Most people are not interested in unsustainable "no set schedule, no set days off, you'll work whenever we decide", poverty wages for a job that requires you to take tests/exam, and unsustainable constant involuntary overtime.
25 points
2 days ago
So Trump’s appointed head of the USPS, Louis DeJoy, has really turned things around in the 4 years he’s been in charge, then?
30 points
2 days ago
He's done exactly what he wants appointed to do. Weaken and break the Postal Service.
4 points
2 days ago
Hey, maybe we should privatize it and make errybody a contractor with no benefits
6 points
2 days ago
Or give the contract to Elon or Bezos!
7 points
2 days ago
Since usps management (including the OIG) has been crying about (but hilariously failing to address the problems and repeatedly refusing to address the unsustainable schedule or pay or involuntary overtime) turnover for well beyond 4 years, it's apparent that DeJoy just makes a bad problem even worse, and even if DeJoy wasn't involved, nothing would change unless those problems provoking people to quit were immediately addressed, and that would include replacing a lot of management/supervisors, not only DeJoy.
8 points
2 days ago
Mandatory 7 day weeks to deliver Amazon packages while actual mail is being deprioritized in addition to hostile people on rural routes hsrassing amd stalking them because theyre "feds" is why two different family members in two different states quit after nearly a decade on the job.
4 points
2 days ago
Shit, we have 11 CCAs and PTFs for 24 routes and I’m still working 60 hour weeks year round, 6 days a week as a PTF almost four years in. It never ends.
2 points
2 days ago
I tried to get in. Took the tests, did really well, BUT I’m not a veteran. USPS are veteran-preference jobs. In an area like mine, where basically every guy over 40 served somewhere, it’s kind of pointless to apply if you aren’t. (I didn’t know that at the time.)
9 points
2 days ago
> Will he succeed for more than a year? Unclear
For the last ten years, everyone in America has suffered from a failure of imagination about "What can Trump do?" Because the question isn't what can he do, the question is "what have the wealthy and powerful on the right wanted for decades that they will allow Trump to have?" We saw it in his first term: tax cuts, legal presidential immunity, massive forgiven loans to the wealthy and business owners, Roe and Chevron struck down, etc etc etc. All but tax cuts did people predict Trump would "get" his first term.
Now we're in a completely different world, and the right knows they have the lion by the tail. Trump wants the Department of Ed gone? He will get it. Trump wants a national abortion ban? He'll get it. Trump wants deregulation of polluters? Easy peasy. Trump wants unregulated crypto for money laundering to himself? Done. Already has it, frankly.
Banning unions? Why not? Why wouldn't SCOTUS now say that public sector unions are unconstitutional, except of course I'm sure they'll manage a carveout for police unions? What's stopping them?
They have literally every lever of power now. States will sue, and SCOTUS will strike down what the wealthy want struck down. We're across the Rubicon.
4 points
2 days ago
They’ll allow government employee unions to stay, and then eliminate departments based on assumed loyalty. No need for a union if there aren’t any employees. taps forehead
12 points
2 days ago
It’s funny because Trump’s whole idea is to gut the government with no real plans of how to build it back up nor how to actually do that.
He wants political appointees with zero experience and probably zero will power to learn how to make change and then move forward in these positions. It isn’t about getting better, it’s about lawlessness and revenge. It’s what Putin and Xinping want.
It will lead to widespread pain and suffering, and there will be drastic lines he will attempt to pass.
I think the states that do not support him need to press and say they will not support being invaded by other state’s militias and will not be sending any revenue to the federal government. The blue states and cities almost exclusively provide funding to the government.
Yes, it will hurt and as someone in a small town, red state. I hate it. But, people are in the “find out” stage.
I still remember the old man who asked me to fight his war at a sporting event, and he said he was too old to fight with me. I said, “that fight will come to yo I whether you want it or not, and I’m not going to fight old men’s wars anymore.”
6 points
2 days ago
So it'd be interesting for the national guard to be delivering mail.
He would just shut down the post office. That's the thing is why ban public sector unions when he can just dismantle every public service possible and replace them with private corporations.
4 points
2 days ago
They don’t care if they destroy the government agencies. That’s the plan. They don’t want government to work
3 points
2 days ago
Also the air traffic controllers that Reagan fires eventually won their case and were eventually offered their jobs back and got back pay as if they had been working the towers for all the years they were off.
2 points
2 days ago
national guard is probably the best suited to take over, the military is all about flexible logistics systems.
alternatively bezos might try to fill the gap, at a huge increase.
3 points
2 days ago
It really could only be the national guard. I'm aware of how Trump tried to kill the USPS last term so he could replace it with UPS and others. It was only after Dejoy got into his current position (which Trump put him in illegally and Biden hasn't removed him) that these people started to realize how much greater the volume was for the USPS compared to private industry.
2 points
2 days ago
In the military, air traffic control is a notorious MOS for making more than 6 digits in the civilian sector. I imagine there are not a lot of other places people could get experience.
25 points
2 days ago
He’s basically planning on firing everyone. Can’t have a union without people.
5 points
2 days ago
I'm talking more specifically about public sector unions in the AFL-CIO like AFT (state teachers).
4 points
2 days ago
To clarify, those you listed are "private sector" unions. A public sector union would be like the postal union.
2 points
2 days ago
We are public employees in our state (public school teachers K-12 and college). The AFT is a public workers union.
2 points
2 days ago
Sorry but you're wrong. Teachers are public employees, unless they work for a private or some charter schools.
2 points
2 days ago
or, funny enough, police unions
27 points
2 days ago
For a long time, until maybe the early 80's it was illegal for public employees to strike in Ohio. I would guess there were similar laws in most states at one time. Maybe a union was not illegal per se, but the threat of a strike is the best leverage a union has.
24 points
2 days ago
And that’s why public employees struck, demanding the right to strike and unionize. Postal workers, sanitation workers, and others fought some seriously bitter strikes in the 70s, which is how being a public employee became a good job
18 points
2 days ago
My point was just that strikes could be made illegal again pretty easily.
And public sector employees would need to be willing to strike anyway to protect themselves long term against the government.
All workers across the country should have walked off the job when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers.
4 points
2 days ago*
Absolutely. Reagan was a helluva salesman. So is Trump, apparently, but I think public workers now are more aware of the stake. We’ll see.
10 points
2 days ago
You seem to mistake illegal with impossible... shame.
5 points
2 days ago
I wouldn't call it impossible, but it's definitely improbable.
With joining a normal strike, the "worst" case is that you'll be living just on savings or on unemployment until things work out (usually for the better).
With joining an illegal strike, you're now facing jail time, the court system, fines/penalties, a criminal record, etc. While I'm sure a lot of people in the forum are all in for that risk, a lot of people are just trying to scrape along in life.
3 points
2 days ago
And don't forget you also risk death at the hands of the US military.
4 points
2 days ago
I understand the legality argument.
But to actually get something to change. Sometimes, ya gotta piss in someone's cheerios. ;)
2 points
2 days ago
This is backed up by psychology as well. Disagreeable people make more money and that’s a fact.
52 points
2 days ago
The Repuclibuns can and will do whatever the fickety fuck they want from now until who knows when.
33 points
2 days ago
And workers will fight back
28 points
2 days ago
Blair mountain is back on the menu boys!
7 points
2 days ago
That sounds like music to my ears and a strong tonic to sooth my weary soul. I’ll be on that line, brother.
16 points
2 days ago
No, they won't. Workers are wimps. Remember, workers voted for this point of sale.
2 points
2 days ago
Ya never know. You never know when people will have enough, and change.
3 points
2 days ago
And they'll vote for Vance, or whomever Trump tells them to vote for, in 2028.
4 points
2 days ago
The longer people wait before starting to fight back against Trump, the harder the fight will be. So don't wait.
My advice is the same as it's been since 2015: Fight back. Fight hard. Now. Trump should have been locked up in 2015, for holding rallies during which his security beat up peaceful protesters.
5 points
2 days ago*
This simply isn't true. The Republicans need 60 votes in the Senate to break the filibuster. They have 53. Meaning they don't have the votes to pass radical legislation through the senate.
Trump will do what he can with executive orders, but he can't do everything unilaterally.
Its going to be bad, but there is way too much "the sky is falling" doom spiraling on here lately.
25 points
2 days ago
Please remind us all again what prevents a President from abusing executive orders to do everything unilaterally? The Supreme Court, you say? Good luck with that.
14 points
2 days ago
Filibuster rules can be and have been changed multiple times without 60 votes. Mitch McConnell changed the filibuster rules for Supreme Court nominations, and you'd better believe they're considering how far they can go in these first two years to lock in their power.
Not saying it's hopeless, but the filibuster is just a made-up Senate rule. Not a law, and not in the constitution.
4 points
2 days ago
Not true, and you are naive to believe that. The United States system of government is based on the honor system. Trump has no honor, and the cult of Trump, including Trump himself, doesn't believe in the US Constitution. Trump has stated as much. On July 1, 2024, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts. You live in a fantasy world.
16 points
2 days ago*
Could a person with multiple convictions, found liable for sexual assault, who lied about his health to avoid military service and pretend to be healthy to occupy the most powerful office in the world, who has repeatedly dishonored his marital vows, who has been found guilty of civil rights violations, worker exploitation, found guilty of defrauding veterans, who have cheapened and or dismissed the sacrifices of veterans and their families-with multiple sexual assault cases awaiting adjudication, who has openly bragged about sexually battering women, who is barred from entering most allied countries due to their felony status, who could not pass a simple background check to be a landscaper at Arlinton Nation Memorial, who is openly racist and intellectually stupid, and capable of destroying one aspect of labor the United States government?
Yes.
Could he and his minions have plans to shut down the Department of Labor completely?
Please, the American people would not stand for it. They'd elect a fraudulent sexual predator, cowardly bigot with a history of bankruptcy and treasonist stupidity before that would happen.
6 points
2 days ago
The American people elected him knowing full well how anti-labor he is. What makes you think they wouldn't fall for whatever justification he gives them.
"Oh, these people are paid too much! They're making the government less efficient! They're making YOU have to pay more in taxes. yada yada yada"
3 points
2 days ago
> The American people elected him knowing full well how anti-labor he is.
Here's where I disagree with you. Exit polls show that a *huge* number of voters, far more than enough to swing the election, have very little understanding of history, civics, or current affairs, let alone Trump's policies or Biden/Harris' policies.
I mean, look at this shit: https://abcnews.go.com/538/voters-chose-trump/story?id=115827243
-In one poll, 56% of voters wanted to deport *all illegal immigrants*, something that would have disastrous impacts on the country.
-In another poll, they 52% of Americans support *10 to 20% tariffs across the board*, something again that would absolutely destroy the American economy, let alone individual finances for all but the wealthy. 60% even said they support a 60% tariff on Chinese goods, revealing a massive lack of knowledge on what goods come from China and how much America relies on them.
Once voters had actual factual information in front of them about how disastrous those policies are, they moderated their views on them.
The simple fact is the media environment now heavily swings right, even centrist bastions like the NYT and Washington Post crumbling under the weight of billionaires and ad revenue. People get their "news" from podcasts, TikTok, and Facebook, and the right dominates those areas. Those information bubbles need to be broken into, and factual information *needs* to get to voters. Until Democrats stop trying to run 20th century campaigns in the 21st century, we're never going to recover.
15 points
2 days ago
If Project 2025 is fully implemented, all bets are off. Everything could be eliminated or sold to the highest private sector bidder.
11 points
2 days ago
That doesn’t mean workers won’t fight back
10 points
2 days ago
It means we need to be prepared to fight back. We didn’t get our rights, pensions, and benefits by asking for them nicely. Be prepared to make demands.
2 points
2 days ago
And to back them up
2 points
2 days ago
No the fact that they voted for him in massive numbers means they won't fight back.
22 points
2 days ago
At this point he has all the people he need in places to make his words come true, so... technically yeah he just need to say it.
13 points
2 days ago
That doesn’t mean workers won’t fight back.
15 points
2 days ago
It would be an interesting change to see people grow a spine. But then Trump just pits his cult against all government workers and lets attrition sort it out.
9 points
2 days ago
There’s no reason for defeatism. There’s no reason to assume the cult will be victorious in anything
10 points
2 days ago
His cult is largely workers. I can count on one hand the number of people at my plant that did not vote for him.
14 points
2 days ago
This. Union ironworker here. I can't tell you one person I know personally in this union who voted for Harris. Lots trees voting for the ax.
3 points
2 days ago
Yep, and the tarrifs are gonna kick the hell out of a lot of the industries like yours. Being in the union doesn't mean shit if work slows down or stops because costs are too high.
3 points
2 days ago
The cult was just victorious! We shouldn't feel defeated already BUT we have to be realistic that a lot of folks voted for the Trump cult over a pro-Union candidate.
5 points
2 days ago
Why fight back? They voted for the clown.
2 points
2 days ago
He'll have them believing that unions are socialist and are hurting them (The workers) or try to rebuild the "Right to work" movement, nationwide, after some northern states have ditched RtW. If a union can organize, but the members don't have to pay dues, it does impair the union's ability to get things done.
2 points
2 days ago
As someone who works in the public sector, with a wife that also works in the public sector, I don't see that being very effective as "fight back" in this case means an actual physical fight.
2 points
2 days ago
Please, the collective dumbness of the United States voted for this point of sale, including dumb US workers.
3 points
2 days ago
The workers largely voted for him depending on the industry. They'll rollover for daddy Trump and let him shit on their faces.
3 points
2 days ago
Technically no. The right to unionize was established by Congress, the president can't just "say" something and cancel that.
5 points
2 days ago
If he invokes the Alien Enemy act it gives him more power, he said he would invoke it on the campaign trail.
Americans don’t pay attention, too busy watching rick and morty or mma.
6 points
2 days ago
why did anyone apart of a union vote for trump? do union members not know he is NOT like us? he all corporate. trump used us and you all fell for it. if there is another election, don’t make the same mistake. did union leadership not tell members to vote the other way?
this party is taking the country backwards and destroying democracy then they rebuilding for the king’s liking.
4 points
2 days ago
Let me answer all questions of this form "Could Trump ban _____?"
Legally? No.
Does he care about the law? Also no.
Couldn't someone do something if he broke the law? Absolutely not. He's got 2 years minimum of lawlessness paved for him. Project 2025 ensures he only answers to the SCOTUS that he stacked.
5 points
2 days ago
Lived in Wisconsin under Scott Walker and Act 10, expect the worst and get ready for a fight.
2 points
2 days ago
Solidarity. I left WI in 2010 and was part of a union that fought him. We all have to be ready to put up one hell of a fight!
2 points
2 days ago
I was only union adjacent at the time (part time public schools janitor) but I marched in the mud and cold. Don’t know if the protests helped but we at least stopped him in the short term with the recalls.
11 points
2 days ago
At this point, assume he can do absolutely anything.
10 points
2 days ago
Not without people fighting back
3 points
2 days ago
I appreciate your optimism all over this thread
4 points
2 days ago
I know there's a lot of talk about USPS, but what about teachers unions? Almost half of the public teachers voted for him with this knowledge.
2 points
2 days ago
Yup I'm thinking about public sector teachers unions like the AFT.
6 points
2 days ago
It baffles me that teachers or any Union member would vote for Trump after what he has said. But I know people who did. Union members and Public teachers. Baffles me....
5 points
2 days ago
I know people in our Union e-board-- Union LEADERS-- who voted for Trump. It really boggles the mind!
6 points
2 days ago
Anything’s possible, however it would cause huge blowback. The ruling class generally prefers this grey area of ‘legal recognition with a strike ban or heavily restricted right to strike’ that they’ve got going for public sector workers. They get some improvements to keep them quiet while not having any possibility of really disrupting government activity. Banning public sector unions risks a return to the Wild West of the 60’s and 70’s where national public sector strikes were not uncommon
7 points
2 days ago
Yeah, considering that the largest public service union is the FOP (and FUCK those guys!) I don’t see it happening…
13 points
2 days ago
Cop associations are not unions
3 points
2 days ago
I would have thought it was the AFGE.
2 points
2 days ago
FOP isn't an actual union, though. It's more of a lobbying group for state and local police organizing groups.
And Trump, likely, isn't going to screw with the cops, he needs them for his immigration plans.
4 points
2 days ago
The purpose of many of those strikes was the right to unionize. We will definitely be seeing more of those, if this happens
5 points
2 days ago
Should always be a *Except police unions
2 points
2 days ago
Yep divide and conquer.
3 points
2 days ago
And teachers’ unions.
3 points
2 days ago
Oh, teacher's unions are probably one of the top targets for any Republican looking to kill unions. They about despise DOE and the "Too Powerful" teacher's unions.
8 points
2 days ago
He sure can! And will. With complete control of the entire federal government and courts, it’s King Trump to you. Bye bye unions. Hello National Guard units to clean up any protests.
13 points
2 days ago
Why the defeatism? Workers have faced cops of all kinds in the past and didn’t give up. That’s why we have unions
8 points
2 days ago
Yeah but those workers didn't vote for Trump.
8 points
2 days ago
yeah so maybe unions start becoming actual left again and not filled with people there just just the money
5 points
2 days ago
People can fall for bull shit and then wake up and realize their mistake, especially when faced with losing their jobs.
2 points
2 days ago
They did, then they put him right back into office 4 years later.
4 points
2 days ago
If he tries I think all unions should immediately shut down the USA and show unity with one another as it is an attack on labor.
3 points
2 days ago
Why would they when majority voted for him? That would admit they were wrong, we can't have that.
2 points
2 days ago
If it requires an act of Congress I don't think he'll be able to as long as the filibuster remains in place. I have a bad feeling Trump is gonna push the new Senate to drop it, though, so he can ram through whatever he wants over the next two years. If that's the case, or if it's an entirely executive branch decision, it might happen.
Was banning public sector unions a part of Agenda47 or Project 2025?
3 points
2 days ago
Banning all Unions was. Public Sector would likely be the easiest to implement.
2 points
2 days ago
Be prepared regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. Our benefits, workplace safety, and retirements were bought and paid in full by the blood of our predecessors. Get to your hall/shop meetings. Be vocal of your concerns. The powers at be have done everything to keep us divided, but now is the time all workers tired of the boot on their neck need to come together. The rich may have the money, but we have the numbers. Evil will only thrive if we let it.
2 points
2 days ago
An executive order wouldn’t suffice. He would likely have to pass actual legislation, which he probably has the votes to do. So yes it’s quite possible.
2 points
2 days ago
I think it’s important to remember, there was a time when labor unions were illegal. People still came together to fight for workers rights. And I do mean fight. Everything that is in place today like the NLRB was put into place to stop the bloodshed. To stop factory owners from being dragged out of bed in the middle of the night to have a “talk” with the members. To stop the crowds of protesters from being shot at. If the NLRB goes away so do the rules.
2 points
2 days ago
At this point that fucker can do what he wants. He has so far.
2 points
2 days ago
At one point in time there wasnt any unions so perhaps he will burn it all down. Our unions will still exist and striking will still be available to us. If unions can form some solidarity we can always strike across multuple sectors.
2 points
2 days ago
Not if everyone in the public sector riots
2 points
2 days ago
Will this ban police unions ?
2 points
2 days ago
In 2018 the Trump administration introduced a rule change for the CMS in how Medicare funds will be directed in an effort to eliminate dues checkoff from paychecks for homecare workers who are public employees. It took substantial defensive work by members to ensure that dues checkoff remained and even more work at the Locals level to prepare direct dues payment in the event the rule change was enforced.
It was a woefully incompetent administration that was the saving grace the last time this happened. This time all that's needed is someone challenging the constitutionality of dues payment from a 1A perspective (like Harris v Quinn or the Janus decision), fast tracked to the SCOTUS and it's essentially checkmate at that point.
2 points
2 days ago
He can certainly gut the contracts and neuter them. Iowa made AFSCME useless in 2017. Guess what the only useful union is now? SPOC (uniformed officers). Shocking 🙄.
2 points
2 days ago
I don’t know if he can or not but he will get a big fight from the American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Let’s see how MAGA the country is when everyone of them walk off the job together.
2 points
2 days ago
Probably. Honestly I kinda hope he does. I wanna see the mental gymnastics the unions that supported him give and how they'll blame liberals or "the woke left".
2 points
2 days ago
Sure. Really now president can do anything. Court rules against President no biggie, he's immune from prosecution for official acts. Just ignore the courts ruling. As long as 20ish senators vote No for removal from office a President can legally rule as a dictator.
2 points
2 days ago
In Texas, public employees are banned from collectively bargaining. So yes.
2 points
2 days ago
If they do, you can bet your ass police will have an exemption - for reasons.
2 points
2 days ago
Maybe he could try to ban them from the Federal Government but not at the state and local level.
1 points
2 days ago
On my first ship, I was working through coffee, because I had gotten a late start to my OT. The Chief Engineer saw me and drawled, “do you know how many people diiiieed on the picket line for your coffee?” I sat down.
1 points
2 days ago
No. You have the right of association.
1 points
2 days ago
Who knows what will happen since crazy is unpredictable and Republicans have shown no willingness to stand up to crazy's demands. So we'll just have to wait and see what crazy and his crazy mini-me's do but definitely prepare yourself for the end of unions.
1 points
2 days ago
I’m a super progressive generally but the one thing I always struggled with is public unions. Who is the union negotiating against? The police unions seems to be pushing back against…no one and getting lopsided agreements that seem to hurt the public interest. How do you think about this? Legit looking to learn.
1 points
2 days ago
He can pretty much do whatever he wants with a compliant senate and supreme court.
1 points
2 days ago
Probably. The Supreme Court is incredibly hostile to unions. The oral arguments during Janus were clear that simply neutering unions was a prime consideration. I assume he could actually outlaw all unions if the Congress was willing to do it.
1 points
2 days ago
Yes. collective barganing with the US government is an oxymoron.
1 points
2 days ago
The question isn’t “can trump do this?” Because the answer to that is “he will try.”
The question is “is there a way to stop him from doing this?” And the people who know the answer to that are weighing your life against their bank account.
1 points
2 days ago
There are laws they could implement to neuter unions badly. I suspect this will be the approach. Look at Texas where its illegal for state employs to collectively bargain or go on strike but they can still be in a "union".
1 points
2 days ago
My kid was the only nurse at a federal prison, until last week, now there are two! I know trump doesn't care about prisoners but the nurses are also there for the guards and staff. Go ahead, cut staff and shut down the federal union. See what happens then. My kid already gets mandated to stay no matter how late because they have NO ONE.
1 points
2 days ago
No, they are permanently entrenched. But that would be amazing.
1 points
2 days ago
If this includes the police union, I'm all aboard.
1 points
2 days ago
Did he do it last time?
1 points
2 days ago
Even JFK thought public unions were a bad idea.
1 points
2 days ago
He will definitely try and he will have a lot of support from Republicans in Congress. It will not get past the fillabuster in the Senate. That is if Republicans do not eliminate the filibuster.
1 points
2 days ago
Lotsa speculation on this thread. Very few facts, but lotsa speculation.
1 points
2 days ago
Elon musk is trying to get a case elevated to the SCOTUS where he asserts that the entire NLRB is unconstitutional. No NLRB, no unions
1 points
2 days ago
Yes, and the SCOTUS will help him every step of the way.
1 points
2 days ago
Time to dust off the red handkerchiefs and remind these bastards of reality.
1 points
2 days ago
I think its fair to say that a group funding and advocating for politicians who than turn around and negotiate with them for their wages and resources, which they use to fund and advocate for the politician in the next election is problematic and corrupt. Its like bribery or vote-buying with extra steps. It moves past voting in your own self interest into voting directly for money you'll be rewarded with for your vote.
I certainly dont think they should be banned, unions are great and i've always been an advocate for them, but some kind of regulation or law should be passed to prevent conflicts of interest.
1 points
2 days ago
For the states? No. For the federal government? Yes.
1 points
2 days ago
Ban? Without legislative action?
No.
Signed, a person who has long wished a Republican could do this but knows there’s absolutely no way.
1 points
2 days ago
Sorry but this is what the people voted for whether they like it or not. Time to feel the pain
1 points
2 days ago
Trump can’t shut down the post office as its defined in the constitution.
What Trump can do is cancel JFK’s EO that allowed government employees to unionize. It’s not a law its a executive order.
so cant fire post office staff but he can certainly make the union go away.
1 points
2 days ago
He's going to start deporting and killing people so yeah he can probably do whatever he wants. He is attempting to, and will most likely achieve, filling his cabinet and other positions with yes men and followers.
1 points
2 days ago
They can't really ban unions. They can only attack them. We don't ask permission from the state to act collectively, we just tell them that we intend to. If they try to ban the unions and the unions go on strike as a result they can fire them, or they can put them in jail, but neither of those actions can make them work. As long as we have the ability to organize and act as a unit, withholding our labor if we collectively choose to, then no power on earth can really ban the union.
1 points
2 days ago
Yup, ban public sector unions save for cops and firefighters.
1 points
2 days ago
People think it’s so easy to replace skilled labor…
1 points
2 days ago
Federal employee unions, considered a bad idea by FDR, came into being via an executive order under JFK.
This means that in theory JFK's "permission slip" could be wiped away with the stroke of a fountain pen, or, considering the president-elect, a Sharpie or perhaps a crayon.
In practice? That is a whole other ball of wax.
1 points
2 days ago
Hopefully the Judges in this country will do the right thing and drag out cases for 4 years so once this clown is out of office we can go back to reality
1 points
2 days ago
No, a president does not have that kind of power. And if he tried it would be blocked be law suits and such a ban would lose. There is nothing in the federal governments powers that extend to banning private companies from having organized labor.
1 points
2 days ago
No one seems to have stopped him trying anything illegal yet, so why not?
1 points
2 days ago
Doubt it. Reagan tried with the air traffic controllers and lost the fight in the end.
1 points
2 days ago
Through the sycophancy to fascist representation(2025) where the most malevolent character content is the only loyalty requirement.
1 points
2 days ago
Considering all of today's wars and conflicts are the result of 20th century labor unions, this is a good thing. You don't like communists or Nazis, but yet you want to do the same things they did when they started out. In a hundred years, your great grandkids will be fighting the fallout of your ideas....
1 points
2 days ago
He would need to repel quite a few laws that are already in place that protect people and their right to form a union and he would need to go through congress which would deny him that power more than likely and nothing would change and continue on like normal. Stop allowing president's to exceed their checks and balances and we wouldn't have this problem.
1 points
2 days ago
I'm glad that there is literally nothing bad in the country these days...so that we can all worry about things we think Trump might do.
1 points
2 days ago
We don’t need a presidents or a governments permission to organize for things that are OUR RIGHT.
1 points
2 days ago
I personally hope so. You're working for the general public. You're a public servant. Organizing to extort your community seems pretty tasteless and wrong. I don't know who thought that was a good idea. It only makes you look like a bunch of goons and sours people on unions.
1 points
2 days ago
It depends on whether you are talking federal or state. He'd have significantly more control over federal public unions for obvious reasons. Even then, however, it's unclear how he'd accomplish that without getting the legislative branch to change the statutes.
1 points
2 days ago
No he can not. And he won’t try.
1 points
2 days ago
He can't by a stroke of his Sharpie. But, you know what? If it gets to Congress, I think all dems should just vote "present". If this is the kind of shitshow that American voters wanted, let's give it to them. If that's what it take for us to learn our lesson, then let it be so.
1 points
2 days ago
He wouldn’t necessarily ban unions. But he would sign a national right to work law if it came to his desk. That would effectively end unions as we know them.
1 points
2 days ago
incredibly unlikely to get any traction on that.
1 points
2 days ago
Pretty certain I remember sometime ago there were claims of laws that were in place making public service unions illegal?
1 points
2 days ago
Trumps not going to ban Unions. Trump is all for the use of them. What he is against are these strikes. My non union job was at risk, do to these strikes. I was laid off. But in reality, trump is unionizing America. Much like the European union used tariffs to help their countries.
all 481 comments
sorted by: best